Wednesday, August 24, 2016

In the interest of developing a core Alternative Right philosophy upon which others can build.

The Alt Right is of the political right in both the American and the European sense of the term. Socialists are not Alt Right. Progressives are not Alt Right. Liberals are not Alt Right. Communists, Marxists, Marxians, cultural Marxists, and neocons are not Alt Right. National Socialists are not Alt Right.

The Alt Right is an ALTERNATIVE to the mainstream conservative movement in the USA that is nominally encapsulated by Russel Kirk's 10 Conservative Principles, but in reality has devolved towards progressivism. It is also an alternative to libertarianism.

The Alt Right is not a defensive attitude and rejects the concept of noble and principled defeat. It is a forward-thinking philosophy of offense, in every sense of that term. The Alt Right believes in victory through persistence and remaining in harmony with science, reality, cultural tradition, and the lessons of history.

The Alt Right believes Western civilization is the pinnacle of human achievement and supports its three foundational pillars: Christianity, the European nations, and the Graeco-Roman legacy.

The Alt Right is openly and avowedly nationalist. It supports all nationalisms and the right of all nations to exist, homogeneous and unadulterated by foreign invasion and immigration.

The Alt Right is anti-globalist. It opposes all groups who work for globalist ideals or globalist objectives.

The Alt Right is anti-equalitarian. It rejects the idea of equality for the same reason it rejects the ideas of unicorns and leprechauns, noting that human equality does not exist in any observable scientific, legal, material, intellectual, sexual, or spiritual form.

The Alt Right is scientodific. It presumptively accepts the current conclusions of the scientific method (scientody), while understanding a) these conclusions are liable to future revision, b) that scientistry is susceptible to corruption, and c) that the so-called scientific consensus is not based on scientody, but democracy, and is therefore intrinsically unscientific.

The Alt Right believes identity > culture > politics.

The Alt Right is opposed to the rule or domination of any native ethnic group by another, particularly in the sovereign homelands of the dominated peoples. The Alt Right is opposed to any non-native ethnic group obtaining excessive influence in any society through nepotism, tribalism, or any other means.

The Alt Right understands that diversity + proximity = war.

The Alt Right doesn't care what you think of it.

The Alt Right rejects international free trade and the free movement of peoples that free trade requires. The benefits of intranational free trade is not evidence for the benefits of international free trade.

The Alt Right believes we must secure the existence of white people and a future for white children.

The Alt Right does not believe in the general supremacy of any race, nation, people, or sub-species. Every race, nation, people, and human sub-species has its own unique strengths and weaknesses, and possesses the sovereign right to dwell unmolested in the native culture it prefers.

The Alt Right is a philosophy that values peace among the various nations of the world and opposes wars to impose the values of one nation upon another as well as efforts to exterminate individual nations through war, genocide, immigration, or genetic assimilation.

TL;DR: The Alt Right is a Western ideology that believes in science, history, reality, and the right of a genetic nation to exist and govern itself in its own interests.

The patron saint of conservatives, Russell Kirk, wrote: "The great line of demarcation in modern politics, Eric Voegelin used to point out, is not a division between liberals on one side and totalitarians on the other. No, on one side of that line are all those men and women who fancy that the temporal order is the only order, and that material needs are their only needs, and that they may do as they like with the human patrimony. On the other side of that line are all those people who recognize an enduring moral order in the universe, a constant human nature, and high duties toward the order spiritual and the order temporal."

This is no longer true, assuming it ever was. The great line of demarcation in modern politics is now a division between men and women who believe that they are ultimately defined by their momentary opinions and those who believe they are ultimately defined by their genetic heritage. The Alt Right understands that the former will always lose to the latter in the end, because the former is subject to change.

Overall, it's good. General, but with enough specifics that many of those that call themselves "Alt Right" violate and would do well to observe.

The only tricky one for me is 10. White people have an "excessive influence" in many Asian and African countries that they're in, even today.

Is the Alt Right opposed to their influence in said countries, and should they be cast out of, say, Hong Kong?

It also brings up the question of how fine one wants to make the gradations. For instance, do Scots living in England count as a foreign ethnic group? What about the French in England? Or a Serbian living in Germany? Some of these groups violently hate one another, after all.

I would take issue with 10. As drafted, it would seem to be anti-nativism i.e., it indicates the alt right would oppose using the law and cultural norms to ensure the dominance of the native ethnic group over foreigners.

I would take issue with 10. As drafted, it would seem to be anti-nativism i.e., it indicates the alt right would oppose using the law and cultural norms to ensure the dominance of the native ethnic group over foreigners.

As someone with a Bachelors degree in political science from a non descript state university, I concur with the defining principles laid out up above based on all I have read re: the Alt Right. (For what it's worth :) )

Saying the Alt-Right is an alternative to Libertarianism is like saying DOCSIS is an alternative to JavaScript.

Even in a perfectly alt-right world, intranational politics should strive toward libertarianism within the bounds of an international alt-right framework. Despite what the faggoty "bleeding heart libertarians" think, libertarianism isn't a suicide pact and you don't have to tolerate foreign invasion. Seems like you're losing focus with that point.

Or maybe Ive just outgrown libertarianism and fail the True Libertarian test and haven't fully realized it yet.

Different ways to look at the definition of Alt-right, other than the policy planks, which do need to be laid out.

The AltRight is ideological, not partisan.

The AltRight consists of every right wing group that was ...ostracized... By the GOPe.

The AltRight has some overlap with Paleocons, but is much more critical of classical liberalism, and is more explicit in its regressivism.

We also need to develop an Auatrian theory of limited trade vs free trade. Nationalism doesn't necessarily lead to tariffs unless the tariffs can be shown to be good for the nation. Vox made a good start but is mostly attacking free trade, whereas we need to show how irrationality and incomplete information make consumer imports a bad deal.

Thaw Alt Right includes all of the white nationalists, but is not a supremacist ideology, in the sense that black nationalists or Asian nationalists could adopt it for their own nation-states.

Why is there opposition to free trade? How do you feel about North East Asian cultures? I lived in Asia for many years and was very impressed with many aspects of Japanese culture. I'm not sure they'd have got there on their won and there is a tendency to totalitarianism. I suppose I'm asking as I am not sure that Christianity is one of the pillars of Western success.

The just-added appropriately numbered item 14 "The Alt Right believes we must secure the existence of white people and a future for white children" is important. It is the real why most of us are on the Alt-Right and it halts any drift toward universalist interpretations of the other points. It clarifies.

I like this, and was about to note that it lacks a theory of political governance, but then decided that any nation of similiar people with shared cultural values will thrive under nearly any political system. It is the shared values that come first. Governance is just "discovering" the means by which those values are most easily expressed.

The problem across the West today is that Western values have been discarded in favor of chasing the unicorn of a system that can simultaneously serve adversarial values, producing #11 as a consequence.

Your books I shall buy, SJWs always lie or do you have a "start here" book? I'll have a think about Christianity and the West, I think the seeds of success are older than Christianity.

Start with Cuckservative and SJWAL. Christianity is only one of the three pillars. Obviously SOME of the seeds of success predate European Christianity. But that doesn't mean Christianity is not a necessary element.

#20 Can we get this manifesto printed in a little red book? I know Maoist Red Guards did this, but putting the manifesto in a Red Pill strikes me as less than useful.

The next alternative would be to print this in small font on a sap glove. I really, really want to use a sap glove when engaging in "discourse" about the Alt-Right, and having the manifesto on one would provide "reasonable man" justification.

The alt-right is the space of the political right consisting of people whose rightist politics are chiefly motivated by some form of anti-egalitarianism, and at the same time are not comfortable with associating with the incumbent categories of modern rightist politics.

Would it be redundant to recap in #14 (or #15) that the Alt-Right believes every race & culture is entitled to its own, homogeneous place; Africa for the various Africans, Asia for the various Asians, Mexico for Mexicans and places that are predominantly Caucasian for the various Caucasians?

Maybe too pedantic, but I'm a fan of asking critics, "Do you object to Africans being entitled to Africa?" And if in debate with a Soros-funded astroturfed clown, "Do you object to Israel for the Jewish people?"

@33 Nate maybe not as much conflict has redundant? To say you support all nations but then highlight the white nation in particular looks sort of redundant, or we are talking about the American Alt-Right specifically?

There could be the appearance of a contradiction between No. 4 "The Alt Right believes Western civilization is the pinnacle of human achievement" and No. 15 "The Alt Right does not believe in the general supremacy of any race, nation, people, or sub-species."

The problem is that Western civilisation should not be seen as some goal or model that Western nations have to impose on others; it must never again become a mission civilatrice. Western civilisation is the model WESTERN nations should strive for but other races and cultures may find that other organizational system fit their particular needs better -- and that is OK.

@33I bailed on the United Methodist Church during Lent and started attending a small Anglican congregation. Anglicans are serious and vastly more orthodox than the modern UMC. When one of the first sermons I heard the rector give was entitled, "What is the worst sin?" I knew I'd found the right place for me. Many of the Protestant churches are nearly converged, but the Anglicans in the US are clearly not.

On the main topic, it's good to get this out there before Hillary defines the strawman Alt Right tomorrow. Part of the strength of the Alt Right is its nebulosity, but that same aspect can allow the movement to be boxed in and defined by others.

No. Alt Right is a Western ideology. We therefore favor Western Civilization. We don't expect the Japanese or the Navajo to do so and we respect their right to reject it in favor of their own cultural preferences.

We're not fucking Marxists or Neocons imposing our way on everyone else.

I would like to raise an important revision to #7 for your consideration:

"The Alt Right is anti-equalitarian. It rejects all concepts of equality except equality before the law for the same reason it rejects the ideas of unicorns and leprechauns, noting that human equality does not exist in any observable scientific, legal, material, intellectual, sexual, or spiritual form."

Given the last of the three pillars mentioned in #4, I think this might be worth emphasising as the one kind of equality that is accepted. Thoughts?

The Alt Right is an ALTERNATIVE to the mainstream conservative movement in the USA, that is nominally encapsulated by Russel Kirk's 10 Conservative Principles, WHICH in reality has devolved towards progressivism.

What is the Lt-Right?"The Alt Right is: a loosely based coalition of like-minded individuals who embrace European values, identity politics and ending all affirmative action policies, including forced integration.

The Alt Right is: vehemently opposed to Jewish control of our Government (((ZOG))), Jewish philosophy (((Marxism))) (((Zionism))) (((Communism))) (((Trotskyism))).

The Alt Right is: a movement that celebrates Europeanism… What is Europeanism??? Europeanism Noun: 1. European characteristics, ideas, methods, virtue, sympathies, etc. 2. European trait or practice. 3. European belief or advocacy of the unification of European Nations. 4. European activism, promotion, movement towards an ethno-State 5. Encouragement, celebration, acceptance of beliefs, values & traditions of Europeans.

What’s an ‘-ism’??? Noun: an [ism] is: a distinctive doctrine, theory, system, or practice. –So, by simply adding the ‘–ism’ effect to the word European we give the word life, action, and purpose.What is a Europeanist??? Europeanist Noun: 1. Individual who recognizes, Aryan ancestry and Caucasians groups who identify as European 2. Individual who opposes the castigation, genocide, or displacement of Europeans 3. Individual who renounces any Governmental, persecution or oppression of Europeans 4. Individual who advocates for Europeanism, especially the unification of all Europeans

The Alt Right is: a push-back against the political system that fails to recognize European, culture, achievement, heritage and racial-identity.The Alt Right is: a protest against the displacement of Europeans in All European Nations, including our satellite Nations, of Australia, New Zealand, and the United States.

The Alt Right: Calls for an ‘immediate’ massive deportation of all illegal non-white aliens, and demands moratoriums are placed on all immigration; we are also calling for a complete stoppage of all resettlement programs.

The Alt Right is: a push-back against the political system that exploits Europeans as a utility, a judicial system that extorts us, a (MSM) that castigates us, and the Religious collaborators who betray us.

The Alt Right: Calls for a total boycott of the Main Stream Media (MSM) and all Religious Institutions that promote, aid, import and resettle 3rd world migrates into our Nations.

The Alt Right: Calls for the US State Department STOP paying Religious Organizations to settle 3rd world migrates into European Nations; the following Organizations settle on average 90,000 yearly into the US alone, (((they))) are Destroying White Spaces (DWS) – World Relief, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, Episcopal Migration Ministries, Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society.

The Alt Right: Calls for the reinstatement of ‘The National Origins Act of 1924’ which was a quota system that kept the United States 90% European which protected our population by excluding Asians, and Africans, in favor of northern and western Europeans over southern and eastern Europeans."

U PC BRO? wrote:Does using the fourteen words almost verbatim hand our enemies a valuable weapon?Yep, a gun that shoots backwards. Let them say that white children should have no homeland and no future.

There's this idea that all nations and homelands as they are now or were fifty years ago should be frozen that I don't agree with. Land changes hands. Peoples are exiled and win new homelands. If the homelands of the West are taken over by invaders it's because the West allowed it, and we should own that. In a hundred years Africa might be a Chinese homeland, with the Caribbean the only homeland for the African race. These things happen. It's not up to us to decide if others try this; it's only up to us to decide if we will take the land we need and defend the land we have won.

I think the correct response is "We don't care." They're going to call us nazis anyway. There's no way we word this so as to not be called nazis. A fricken national populist presidential candidate who's views are significantly softer gets pilloried daily in the press for being an "intolerant bigot."

A spectre is haunting Europe — the spectre of nationalism. All the powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre: Pope and Soros, Merkel and Hollande, humanitarian aid workers and Facebook police-spies.

Where is the party in opposition that has not been decried as racist by its opponents in power? Where is the opposition that has not hurled back the branding reproach of racism, against the more advanced opposition parties, as well as against its reactionary adversaries?

Two things result from this fact:

I. Nationalism is already acknowledged by all European powers to be itself a power.

II. It is high time that Nationalists should openly, in the face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, their tendencies, and meet this nursery tale of the Spectre of Nationalism with a manifesto of the party itself.

Does using the fourteen words almost verbatim hand our enemies a valuable weapon?

You think declaring the elimination of the white race and destroying the future for white children is a SELLING POINT for them?

No. It does not. The 14 words are great. It's the 88 Precepts that are hopeless, beginning with the very first one. They're pretty haphazard; it's basically atheist white nationalism, which means that it's almost entirely irrelevant.

I think #10 should be removed. It allows others to attack the morality of America itself because America was founded by dominating the native people. I think the principles of #10 are already covered in #5, #7, #9 and #11.

I don't think it's something that should be added to the list but I've been kicking around the "Privilege is actually birthright" concept. It sorta seems like it might be conceding ground/being within the opponents frame that "privilege" in the sense they mean it actually exists. On the other hand on twitter you don't have much room. Is there a good concise way to make the same point without conceding to a leftist frame/definition?

"The Alt Right is opposed to the rule or domination of any native ethnic group by another, particularly in the sovereign homelands of the dominated peoples. The Alt Right is opposed to any non-native ethnic group obtaining excessive influence in any society through nepotism, tribalism, or any other means."

The definition of "native" becomes very important here. For example I would say the first listed below are "native" and the second "invasive". My reading of this highlights a potential conflict between a European and American alt-Right.

I think #10 should be removed. It allows others to attack the morality of America itself because America was founded by dominating the native people. I think the principles of #10 are already covered in #5, #7, #9 and #11.

So what? America's attack on my people was immoral in almost every possible way. Do you have any idea how many treaties the USA broke with various Indian tribes? Americans had better pray that there is no justice in this world, because justice would require an invasion of over one billion Asians and Africans and Arabs killing most of them and sweeping the rest onto reservations in the desert.

The Alt Right is not interested in excusing America's historical sins. History is what it is. Deal with it.

dc.sunsets wrote:I like this, and was about to note that it lacks a theory of political governance, but then decided that any nation of similiar people with shared cultural values will thrive under nearly any political system. It is the shared values that come first. Governance is just "discovering" the means by which those values are most easily expressed.This was one of the hardest things for me to let go of in my conversion from "conservative" to "alt-Right." While it is not difficult to demonstrate that Marxist command economy political governance is inferior to laissez faire, almost anti-governance, if you will, within like-minded communities (and scripture will back this up if my interpretation of the reign of the Judges and the whole process Israel underwent to select a king in spite of God's specific warning to them not to), the fact is that clearly it isn't the most important variable that affects performance. There is a reason, after all, that the Democrats like to point to places like Japan, Scandinavia, Germany, the Netherlands, etc. as socialist or at least quasi-socialist societies that work reasonably well.

I'm amused by conservative memes that keep pointing to Venezuela or Cuba or even communist Russia as examples of ones that don't, and also conservative memes that try to debunk the "Denmark is so great" claim of the liberal by creating a circular argument that basically says that it must suck because it's socialist.

Both liberals and conservatives are unwilling to accept the obvious data in front of their faces; the system of government is not the most important variable that affects outcome.

1. Irrelevant. It's long over and there is no going back.2. Two parties, both with reasonable claims. Plenty of room in Arab countries, so Israel.3. Maghreb. The French didn't belong there.4. Whites. Most of the blacks there arrived long after the whites.

The Alt Right is openly and avowedly nationalist. It supports all nationalisms and the right of all nations to exist, homogeneous and unadulterated by foreign invasion and immigration.

Incompatible visions of society are an inevitable consequence of multiculturalism. Antagonistic cultures guarantee warfare, political or real, as cultural factions seek to compel their visions of law and behavior, and use society to redistribute wealth and power from others to their faction members. Multiculturalism is thus an observable failure and a hopelessly naive goal. Peace and prosperity are promoted in homogeneous polities.

[I know, I know, too verbose. I just like to pound home the point that we have problems with BLM, Aztlan, arguments about open borders, even the egregious violations of equality before the law of Affirmative Action, because factions in the USA use political power to enrich their members while bullying and robbing their competitors. No such BS would exist in a place where people all share a much closer notion of social standards and where the spectrum of personal abilities has nothing to do with the excuse of physical appearance.]

Some of these points are obviously intended to clearly state that those on the alt right are not "conservatives." There is a huge amount of confusion among the general public about what is right wing due to the fact that for the last generation the talking heads for the right have primarily been pro-war leftist foreigners who are ignorant of American history and culture and who largely advocated policies that were hostile to America's pre-WWII political traditions and the interests of the native population.

For that reason, to the extent this list specifically describes the American alt right, it might make sense to say "the alt right is reactionary" (without using the word reactionary of course). The intention would be to state clearly that the alt right views the recent innovations of empire and open borders as failed post-Hoover experiments and seeks a return to the isolationism and anti-immigration/diversity that were the rule for most of America's history.

The alt right isn't new or fringe - neocons/cucks are. The more clearly it can be stated that the alt right is the true representative of traditional American principles and the views of most native whites, the more clearly it will be clear that the Bill Kristol's and Ben Shapiro's of the world are not on the right and can no longer co-opt the right wing.

This probably should be reworked to indicate opposition to American conservatism as well as an alternative:

The Alt Right is an ALTERNATIVE to the mainstream conservative movement in the USA that is nominally encapsulated by Russel Kirk's 10 Conservative Principles, but in reality has devolved towards progressivism. It is also an alternative to libertarianism.

Possible edit:

The Alt Right is an ALTERNATIVE to mainstream American conservatism. It opposes the nominal encapsulation of Russel Kirk's 10 Conservative Principles that has in reality devolved towards progressivism. It is also an alternative to libertarianism.

The opposition to mainstream conservatism needs to be driven home. It is a great list, and for me the heart is items four and five.

VD wrote:I think #10 should be removed. It allows others to attack the morality of America itself because America was founded by dominating the native people. I think the principles of #10 are already covered in #5, #7, #9 and #11.

So what? America's attack on my people was immoral in almost every possible way. Do you have any idea how many treaties the USA broke with various Indian tribes? Americans had better pray that there is no justice in this world, because justice would require an invasion of over one billion Asians and Africans and Arabs killing most of them and sweeping the rest onto reservations in the desert.

The Alt Right is not interested in excusing America's historical sins. History is what it is. Deal with it.I don't disagree with your assessment of the immorality of America's founding. I just think that highlighting it within this manifesto allows others to totally discredit the Alt-Right movement in America on the basis of hypocrisy.

As for No. 1, there is a tendency in France to deny the relevance of the left/right political spectrum and to instead emphasize the binary struggle between Nationalism and Globalism.

Another point is saying "Socialists are not alt-Right". What do we mean here by Socialist? If we mean someone who believes the government should own all the means of production, then OK. But if we really mean no national health service then this could be a problem. I would consider Marine Le Pen as the Founding Mother of the alt-Right and her program, which includes many things that could be labelled "Socialist", and so we should make sure as much as possible that what we list as the fundamental principles of the alt-Right do not conflict with the Front National's program.

@71 Lazarus, but you didn't weigh in on my sap glove notion. You have to admit that it would sure feel good, i.e., "leave an impression" when you bitch-slapped some Equals Temple cultist who was running in circles screaming, "racist! racist!"

For that reason, to the extent this list specifically describes the American alt right, it might make sense to say "the alt right is reactionary" (without using the word reactionary of course). The intention would be to state clearly that the alt right views the recent innovations of empire and open borders as failed post-Hoover experiments and seeks a return to the isolationism and anti-immigration/diversity that were the rule for most of America's history.

No. We're not paleos and we don't give a damn about American political history. Nor are we reactionaries. The Alt Right is forward-looking.

This is something new. Stop trying to turn it into something you already know and accept. It's not merely an American thing. It is trans-national, ironically enough.

I'm not clear how #10 works in practice. I'm sitting in an office in Saint Paul, Minnesota, on land bought by Thomas Jefferson from Napoleon but formerly ruled by Chief Little Crow of the Dakota. Give it back?

The Alt Right believes Western civilization is the pinnacle of human achievement and supports its three foundational pillars: Christianity, the European nations, and the Rule of Law.

I'm very curious about how Christianity is framed in this discussion, since I get the impression that a sizable chunk of people who may be sympathetic to the alt right are irreligious.

I guess the question is: can the irreligious support Christianity (I think it's obvious they can in a sense), and what is the standard for supporting it? Full-on belief in God and Christ? Or support and promotion even in absence of that belief?

I guess the question is: can the irreligious support Christianity (I think it's obvious they can in a sense), and what is the standard for supporting it? Full-on belief in God and Christ? Or support and promotion even in absence of that belief?

The latter. There is room in the Alt Right for Christians, pagans, agnostics, and atheists. There is no room for Islam, because Islam is a rival ideology as well as a religion. Therefore, the Alt Right does not believe in the freedom of all religions.

Did St. Ted Cruz reveal that to you or did you come up with that yourself?

You know that I never supported Cruz.

You're absolutely wrong. That has been an integral element of the Alt Right almost from the start.

The 14 words is explicit signaling to white supremacists.

White supremacy is not compatible with:

The Alt Right does not believe in the general supremacy of any race, nation, people, or sub-species. Every race, nation, people, and human sub-species has its own unique strengths and weaknesses, and possesses the sovereign right to dwell unmolested in the native culture it prefers.

With respect to Christianity and Western success, think of European genes as the firmware/hardware and Christianity as the operating system that best unlocked the Westerner's potential.

But as you can see with Windows 10, adopting a crappier operating system (let's call it SJWacintosh) means you're able to do less with your machine, and possibly even see your machine work against you (e.g. Windows 10 data mining and spyware).

If Europeans returned to Christianity, they would have the moral foundation on which the nations can be defended, the impetus to improve themselves individually and as a society, and a love for Truth that transcends the need for consensus. And of course, a desire to realize beauty. The Truth shall set you free, as Christ himself says. And Christ is the Truth, the Life, and the Way to the Father - God.

Only part I might quibble with is the "spiritual" in number 7. I think there is a sort of equality inherent in Christianity and in the notion of human rights derived from it. Namely, if a 60 IQ African pygmy tribeswoman kills a 130 IQ Englishman, it's equally murder as if the 130 IQ Englishman kills the tribeswoman (assuming for the moment that neither had previously committed a murder or attacked the other, so that it was unprovoked), because both equally have the human right to life, which is binary. The murderer equally merits having their own life taken as retribution in either case. I submit that this basic premise (together with the concepts of property rights and some other things) underlies the notion that no ethnicity has the right to dominate or rule another one in its own land as well.

I just think that highlighting it within this manifesto allows others to totally discredit the Alt-Right movement in America on the basis of hypocrisy.

Appeals to history have no logical cutoff and a 10 year old should be able to see them as without merit.

The tribes of people displaced in the 17th-19th century in North America were simply the latest in a long line of Zeke-displaced-Yale-displaced-Xyphon-displaced-William, etc., etc., all the way back to when Allan and his tribe came across the Bering Land Bridge tens of thousands of years ago.

The only people with an original claim to North America were displaced and/or subsumed a hundred times over during that long period.

If "X" enters a land occupied by "Y" and basically displaces "Y" almost entirely, the land is now "X's."

Leftists explicitly recognize this when they call for the elimination of "whites" (because Racism) or invaders openly advocate for Aztlan. The Alt-Right exists because a few people woke up and realized that if whites consent (out of pathological altruism or suicidal collective-insanity) to displacement, there will literally be NO PLACE ON EARTH for their grandchildren to live.

The stupid (and the Asians) will have inherited the Earth. Not my notion of okay.

"The Alt Right is not a defensive attitude and rejects the concept of noble and principled defeat. It is a philosophy of offense, in every sense of that term. The Alt Right believes in victory through persistence and remaining in harmony with reality."

This is what will enable us to win. Its a breath of fresh air to see a movement that is not afraid of being confrontational, unapologetic and willing to take the battle to the enemy.

For many years I've been actively involved in a number of forest product industry trade groups. There has been a core group of us who have worked tirelessly to fend off the environmental luddites found at the federal,state and local levels. Despite our hard, thankless work - we rarely win. Instead we give up our rights consistently while flattering ourselves that its not so bad because the watermelon marxists didn't fully get what they want. Roughly eight years ago it dawned on me that the most effective way for us to fight these watermelon marxists is to bring the fight to them. Using all legal means necessary we should be putting them on the defensive. When I tried to convey this to the leaders of some of these trade groups - there was a resistance and certain squeamishness to this idea. It was then that I realized we would never win the war utilizing our current strategy..

But finally, its nice to see the tables turning and a movement starting that has no qualms whatsoever about delivering a good sound ass beating to those parties and movements that have had it easy for way too long !

Last week while thinking of the differences between the two major parties and the Alt Right in regards to the black/white issue I wrote the following ideas.

The republican/conservative think the black man is stupid and easily deceived thus falling for all the democratic schemes to give them free stuff.

The democrat/liberal realizes the black man is lazy, and not able to control themselves. Therefore they can easily win the black man's favor by giving them free stuff and telling them they are not to blame for any of their problems it's the white man's fault.

The alternative observes nature and seeks truth. Truth informs us that black and white men at large are different with differing values and desires. They each deserve to live unencumbered by the chains of one or the other. White men owe the black man nothing, and black men should not be forced to live under white man rules. They each do best when separate and left to their own to seek their own desires.

"White supremacist" is today nothing more then rhetoric meant to demean and dehumanize whites.

Yes there are morons whose political and social vocabulary have never changed since "Commander Rockwell" penned "White Power" (free sample of it available on Amazon, WP is basically the usual daily outrage complimented by "niggerkikinspiccin" and totally irrelevant)

Robert Whitaker's Mantra and "White Genocide" have supplanted the decades of fail.

Ok, so given how the US was founded what does that mean for nationalists going forward? When we carve back up the states do we try to roll back Manifest Destiny and return actual sovereignty to some/all of the tribes? What about slave descended blacks?

Times like these I wish those darn Englishmen had stayed home. For anyone in the future who may stumble across this archived somewhere - for pity's sake. Deal with your disaffected yourselves! Don't send them around the world to set up shop elsewhere. It doesn't pay.

This is the linchpin to the whole thing. When the name calling starts, the ZFG by the alt-right will enrage the Regressive Left and the University SJW crowds. It really bothers them when you don't get angry at their name calling, let alone not caring at all. The leftist proles on the ground have always done the dirty work for the Soros / SPLC / DNC oligarchs. Taking away their rhetorical weapon will hurt, if people can be steadfast to holding the line.

The Alt Right is not a defensive attitude and rejects the concept of noble and principled defeat. It is a forward-thinking philosophy of offense, in every sense of that term. The Alt Right believes in victory through persistence and remaining in harmony with science, reality, cultural tradition, and the lessons of history.

Added "forward-thinking" and "lessons of history" to deal with all the pedants who are worried about how to retroactively apply a 21st century ideology to 15th century actions.

Sorry if someone else commented on this, but i can't read all posts right now.

A few notes concerning particular points:

-1. The common thread these ideologies share today is 'universalim', which is what the alt-Right opposes. It is technically feasible to have some of those views, provided they are paired with Nationalism. There are National-Socialists in the alt-Right after all.

-4. The alt-Right is not inherently Christian. There are many Christians within the movement, who rightly see it as the way to protect their values, but so are there many non-Christians in there. Where the alt-Right differs itself from the current "Left" and increasingly the current mainstream "Right", is that it has no hostility towards Christianity, provided it's not a tainted, converted brand of it, such as what Pope Faggo preaches.

-14(i see what you did there). This is just incidental to the current state of affairs, as is the tie between the alt-Right and White identitarianism. The movement extends this same principle to all peoples and i think other points listed pretty much imply this one already.Moreover, the alt-Right does not presume to preserve peoples with no interest in preserving themselves; Which is precisely the issue here, where currently many Whites desire to preserve themselves, but are being prevented, or at least de-incentivized from doing so.

White men owe the black man nothing, and black men should not be forced to live under white man rules. They each do best when separate and left to their own to seek their own desires.

Good luck with that. It's a small world, and the crushing weight of evidence pointing to Sub-Saharan Africa's children being incapable of producing the Western Wonders they still see on TV, in movies and in print will be forever a furnace of rage and resentment, even if people of predominantly African ancestry are entirely segregated to their own lands.

Stupid whites in North America largely accept their lives. Stupid Chinese in China largely accept their lives. I accept my life and do not compare it to the lives of those who are smarter, more talented or more fearless than I am.

But introduce very definite physical differences, instantly noticeable, and suddenly differing levels of wealth yield white-hot envy and are immediately attributed to those physical differences.

This will exist as long as humans sporting differing physical attributes exist, or until in a distant future science is able to distribute capabilities like chefs with their ingredients produce a meal.

VD @85 - I agree completely to the extent alt right is being used as an umbrella term for UKIP, NF, AD, etc. and I explicitly limited my description to the movement within the USA. What about your writings on immigration, which you've supported with reference to American law and principles from the founding to 1965 and which have advocated (or at least described as inevitable and desirable) a return to pre-1965 demographics? Do you not consider these ideas alt right or are they somehow distinguishable from paleo/reactionary thought?

No more than the Alt-Right is inherently Western. Or, white. But the reality is that Christianity is a necessary component of Western civilization. If the Alt Right does not support both, it does not exist; I for one would not be a part of it, nor would the greater part of its base.

So, if you're a Japanese Alt-Rightist, Christianity is not relevant. If you're American or European, it is, as it is an integral part of your cultural tradition, if nothing else.

VD, I am quite close to many (not all) of the principles that you have listed, and I would be glad to hear your opinion on the following:

1. To what extent would you say the Alt Right is close to National Socialism? From what I can gather from your text and my conversations with people who staunchly believe in NS, I'd say the similarities are enormous. Of course, the NS brand is absolutely destroyed and no-one with a brain larger than a peanut would claim it for himself.

2. I hear quite often from alt-rightists the idea that we humans are essentially irrational, and that no ideology that does not keep this in mind can possibly prosper. The alt-right would be a kind of right that correctly assesses this fact of human nature.

To what extend do you think that many of the principles that you have listed are not defensible from a rational point of view, but should be defended anyway because of their capacity to drag the masses?

If we speak frankly, genetic nations are an absurd concept. Wouldn't you say that Spanish and French natives living across the Pyrenees are genetically closer than said French natives and French natives living in Normandy?

Ignoring the biological / ethnic component of nations is unwise (we're seeing now in Europe), but isn't reducing nations to biology equally unwise? And isn't the association of genes and land ultimately conducive to the concept of Lebensraum? Lebensraum is a harmless moment... until the moment when two "genetic nations" don't quite agree on where their "legitimate" soil ends.

It depends. Are you going to play anklebiter or are you going to comment substantively? Let's say point 14 for now.

Fair enough.

I'm assuming that the rule of law covers the right to keep and bear arms, private property, and free enterprise, thus it would be redundant to have separate points for each of those things. Would that be a correct assumption?

Obviously we aren't primarily opposed to them but are to the deformation of conservatism into slow motion progressivism. Maybe "alternative" standing alone without mention of opposition is the better tact in a manifesto that lays out first principles. I'll think about it a bit more.

When I read G.K. Chesteron's apologetics, as great as they are, I get the sense that Chesterton was never actually a "believer". He just saw the moral, intellectual and social utility of (Catholic) Christianity. I think every self-styled Pagan or Odinist owes it to themselves to check out Chesterton, if for nothing else, than to get an appreciation of the idea that "rationality" and "utility" do not always coincide. Cf. Pareto on this too.

I'm assuming that the rule of law covers the right to keep and bear arms, private property, and free enterprise, thus it would be redundant to have separate points for each of those things. Would that be a correct assumption?

Not necessarily. While the rule of law may cover those things, the utility of those things is not limited to a discussion about the rule of law.

I'm assuming that the rule of law covers the right to keep and bear arms, private property, and free enterprise, thus it would be redundant to have separate points for each of those things. Would that be a correct assumption?

More the bit about the political right. But those are specific policies more than they are core philosophies.

Alt-Right came together from what I call the Pat Buchanan and the Camille Paglia directions: moral nationalism and amoral sex-realism. Or WN and Game. The points in this post are overwhelmingly political, with sex-realism and such being implicit but not given their own stand-alone points. Do you think sex/family/game dynamics are adequately covered in this comprehensive set of points?

I'm assuming that the rule of law covers the right to keep and bear arms, private property, and free enterprise, thus it would be redundant to have separate points for each of those things.

Alt-Right seems to be above what you're discussing. A Japanese Alt-Right would hardly embrace "guns for all" because that's simply not part of Japanese culture.

Alt-Right is about homogeneous self-determination (yes, I know it's an oxymoron. Sue me.) A homogeneous polity will arrive at the 2nd Amendment (and the entire Bill of Rights) because that's its members' culture, or IT WON'T.

IMO, arguing about the specifics waits until Cthulhu is stopped dead it its tracks (Cthulhu only turns LEFT!) Once culturally and (redundant) genetically homogeneous places are left to suss out the specifics, by that time you should damn well know if your self-chosen group agrees with you on something as foundational as the right to bear arms.

5. Because the Alt Right understands that diversity + proximity = war, the Alt Right is openly and avowedly nationalist. It supports all nationalisms and the right of all nations to exist, homogeneous and unadulterated by foreign invasion and immigration.

I don't consider the right to bear arms to be a philosophical foundation of the Alt-Right. It's probably a wise policy in most current (multicultural) societies, but it's not a prerequisite. Indeed, if the Alt-Right philosophy is carried out properly, there should ultimately be enough societal trust and respect for the rule of law that gun ownership is no longer required.

Funny thing; as I was reading this manifesto, there's a Rabbi on the news here, talking with the Talking Head about the Australian left's campaign to legalise gay marriage.

He's telling the guy that reality has a longer history than the TH's gay sister and faggy friends. The TH is stunned: "How can you tell me that their love is wrong?!?!"

The Rabbi tells him we've been here before. Homosex is not new. The Greeks, the Romans, for centuries it was almost obligatory. Like living in San Francisco. But nature always asserts itself, everything eventually returns to the mean.

It was hilariously funny, watching a Rabbi giving an SJW a lesson in reality, in history, in logic.

Great Again wrote:Indeed, if the Alt-Right philosophy is carried out properly, there should ultimately be enough societal trust and respect for the rule of law that gun ownership is no longer required.

@123 Buchanan is described as paleo rather than alt right but this seems more about a difference in generation, style and tactics than substantive philosophical differences. He has been one of the most prominent advocates for the above points for decades. I would be hard pressed to draw a clear line between his beliefs and those of the alt right or even to identify any major point of disagreement.

So, if you're a Japanese Alt-Rightist, Christianity is not relevant. If you're American or European, it is, as it is an integral part of your cultural tradition, if nothing else.

I don't think a Christian imperative belongs in the definition of the alt-right ideology, despite being a Christian. Many (most?) of the originators of the term and movement (Spencer, Johnson) were and are explicitly agnostics, pagans or atheists. Many alt-righters are ambivalent towards the effects of Christianity on the west (in particular the Jewish influence empowered by it.) Out of respect for that, "Traditionalism" might be a broader, more truthful way of getting at it, although that isn't very normie-friendly.

The Alt Right rejects free trade and the free movement of peoples that free trade requires.

Even for people who dislike Christianity, you'd have to be astoundingly ignorant, or idiotic, to argue against it's ties to Western civilization. Pretending 'history doesn't real!' is the Left's thing.

What i'm saying is that the alt-Right, as a movement, does not automatically abide by any Christian principles as a guideline. Individuals within it may willingly do so, of course. But there are a lot of agnostics, atheists and even Pagans in there who should not be expected to do the same, whether they are of a Western heritage, or not.

Also, there's a similar incidental tie between the alt-Right's connection with Christianity and it's connection with White identitarianism. Wherein Christians are increasingly facing a world hostile to their values, in some places to the point of physical mass genocide and the alt-Right is the only political movement which not only allows them to stand for themselves, but will also fight for them.

(By the way, English is not my first language, so i apologize if i'm failing to express myself in sufficiently intelligible fashion.)

To be honest I would be very interested in hearing a discussion concerning Alt-right vs AnCap at Molyneux's show. It probably should be done when the election cicle ends, to not antagonize the right wing base, huh?

Some of us really are fetishists with regard to our weapons. Possession of a gun is what makes a human being the most dangerous animal on Planet Earth (i.e., the only one that can kill at a distance.) Every polity on the planet has people who wield such power. The only difference is WHO, and how they are selected.

Slavery is the natural state of humanity. It is entirely self-selected (slaves forge their own chains.) Its basis is consent (i.e., Discourse on Voluntary Servitude by Etienne de la Boetie.)

I don't G.A.S. what others do, but choosing to live overtly as an unarmed slave is not on my to-do list. (This leaves aside the unavoidable choice to live as an armed slave, who has no choice but to jump in the lake when his fellow citizens, mental slaves in majority, decide everyone needs a baptism.)

An Alt-Right polity for me will embrace, as part of its operating consensus, that every man be armed.

I would say "international free trade" here to avoid "Are you kidding me? Are you kidding me?" reactions from libertarian inclined folks.

Good point. Revised:

The Alt Right rejects international free trade and the free movement of peoples that free trade requires. The benefits of intranational free trade is not evidence for the benefits of international free trade.

That's ridiculous. There is no spiritual equality, not even in Christianity.

To be a little pedantic, in the parable of the Talents, God gave the exact same reward—word for word—to the guy who had five talents that he turned into ten as the guy who had two talents that he turned into four.

Or, in other words, there may not be spiritual equality, but the potential worth of each soul is the same to God, and the potential spiritual reward is equal for all.

But I freely admit that that's somewhat pedantic and shouldn't be entertained for change on my account.

You're not Chinese. You're making exactly the same mistake that the neocons do. Everyone just wants to be an American, right?

Do I look like I'm Chinese? "An Alt-Right Polity for me." I thought it was implicit that "MY" Alt-Right would be in the USA, and be based on the articles you listed (including Christianity and Western Civ.)

I'll clarify it. "An Alt-Right Polity to which I intend to belong. And no, I won't be in China. China doesn't exactly need an Alt-Right, does it? Neither does Japan.

The rise of the Alt-Right arises explicitly because certain people are being marginalized (by their own peers, in favor of adversaries) in their own lands. Did early American colonists need an Alt-Right? Do you imagine that the Chinese would embrace your manifesto?

"You're not Chinese. You're making exactly the same mistake that the neocons do. Everyone just wants to be an American, right?"

This made sense to me at first.

Then I remembered that the Alt-Right as a concept is irrelevant to the Chinese and the Japanese... because the fact that China and Japan should be run by the Chinese and the Japanese is so implicit in their culture that he alternative would never occur to them.

Alt-Right only makes sense in white countries. Because only white countries have been dumb enough to suggest that their countries should be run by not-whites.

The massive problem the old NRO crowd had was they constantly wanted to not sound like a racist, or bigot to the left. The problem with this stance is that unless you completely agree with the left you will always sound like a racist and bigot to the left.

Despite all of their work, the left still thinks the NRO is full of racists, and calls them fascists. So they failed twice, they failed in their supposedly original task which was conserve society and politics, and they failed in their secondary task which was to not be called racists and bigots.

A man in the Alt-Right realizes that unless he completely agrees with the left, the left will always hate him call him names.

In general... philosophically I think it wise for the Alt-Right to adopt a pro gun position because white nations are being invaded and if the governments will not defend those nations then the people must be able to.

Gotta have it anyway to let them know we're not just dabbling in some high-minded UN Human Rights posturing, but that we're quite serious about it. The whole thing would sound academic without the 14W.

On #15, I would end with "right to dwell unmolested in its native culture." The current last two words "it prefers" seem unnecessary, and really their preference is irrelevant. Each race, nation, people, or sub-species may prefer their own native culture, but part of the problem the alt-right is addressing is the mistaken idea that a race, nation, people, or sub-species claims to prefer another culture that it is in fact destroying and bending towards its culture.

Or, in other words, there may not be spiritual equality, but the potential worth of each soul is the same to God, and the potential spiritual reward is equal for all.

This is a statement of unifying principles. Many, including myself, do not believe in God but can be in a group with those who do and abide by the ideas set forth above. Agnostics acknowledge the pivotal role in the development of Western Civilization even if we don't follow the religion.

----

I guess my final thoughts before getting back to work are that the document may be a tad bit long and has some redundancies reading back through. My previous criticism of Item 2 is withdrawn on further reflection because it is unnecessary itself.

Good idea to develop a manifesto, as an aside, before the enemy starts to define us tomorrow.

populist presidential candidate who's views are significantly softer gets pilloried daily in the press for being an "intolerant bigot."

If you don't want to have sex with a gay that is HIV+ you will be called a bigot, don't chase the moving goalpost.

61Huwhite frog but I've been kicking around the "Privilege is actually birthright" concept

"White privilege is not unearned. It is bought and paid for through the cost of maintaining the normative commons." http://atavisionary.com/a-particularly-heinous-crime-and-how-you-can-avoid-a-similar-fate/

Hey Vox, the Neocons don't think everyone wants to be us. They want to (make money) by telling us we (US taxpayers) have to pay to make (by force, if necessary) everyone be us. (Because peace = everyone is us, which ironically is a message of homogeneity.)

I thought it was self-evident I don't think everyone wants to be "us." But they sure as fuck want to enjoy the golden eggs produced by "us." They want the goodies, and the goal is to keep us producing them and GIVING THEM TO THE OTHERS, GRATIS.

Remember that the point of the right to bear arms is not only so the individual can protect himself from criminals, but also so the people can protect themselves from government tyranny, so it wouldn't be unnecessary even in a peaceful society.

(By the way, English is not my first language, so i apologize if i'm failing to express myself in sufficiently intelligible fashion.)

You are doing fine.

I agree with your point and, as I said above, a prescriptive Christianity as part of the alt-right is disrespectful towards many of the original founders and members of the movement. Softening the language to "respect traditional religions/Christianity" would be less D&C.

On point 10 - is it better to qualify or refine that the order of the world is 'dominate or be dominated'? And that a people have a particular right to be dominant in their native lands? Maybe even a basic definition of native lands? Just thinking about what issues this manifesto would need to outflank.

@8 We recognize that all science is a process of successive approximation, in which theories must change as new information is discovered. We also recognize that science is very susceptible to corruption and being politicized when it interacts with Government.

I agree with your point and, as I said above, a prescriptive Christianity as part of the alt-right is disrespectful towards many of the original founders and members of the movement.

This is about philosophical truth, not kowtowing to certain individuals. They thought, erroneously, that post-Christian Western Civilization was possible. So did most people. And now we can clearly see that they were wrong.

With the possible exceptions of 7 and 8, these principles can be summarized as the idea that Western nations must preserve their cultures and autonomy and that this also requires the preservation of the native ethnic groups. Some shared policies flow from this - citizenship based on ethnicity, mass deportations, economic nationalism, purge of foreigners from decisionmaking roles. Otherwise, policies between nations will diverge as they make policy decisions in accordance with their different cultures through some sort of responsive, perhaps representative, but non-democratic process.

Alt right philosophy does not permit national suicide but otherwise seems to prescribe only the decisionmaking process in re to issues like gun control, not the outcome.

While I agree for the most part with #10, I would point out that some key alt-right figures do not. Richard Spencer, in particular, has a record of opposing ethnonationalism and has posited that smaller ethnic groups (e.g., Poles) may realize greater prosperity living under imperial rule.

I find myself wondering why he doesn't just pull the lever for Hillary...

"I don't think a Christian imperative belongs in the definition of the alt-right ideology, despite being a Christian. Many (most?) of the originators of the term and movement (Spencer, Johnson) were and are explicitly agnostics, pagans or atheists"

I think without a Christian base, imperative, shared belief, etc in Jesus as savior and the Alt Right is doomed in time.... I know why one might be hesitant to explicitly call this a Christian movement but understand the values at the core here are Christian whether espoused by christian, agnostics or atheists... this fear to call/acknowledge this Christian is what has led to the issues we find ourselves 200+ years after the founding of this country.. IMHO

Fascinating discussion -- it almost gives one the feeling of the sort of discussions that our founding fathers would have had ...

I would point out that some key alt-right figures do not. Richard Spencer, in particular, has a record of opposing ethnonationalism and has posited that smaller ethnic groups (e.g., Poles) may realize greater prosperity living under imperial rule.

He'll figure it out sooner or later. His logic there is intrinsically self-destructive; he simply hasn't thought the matter through deeply enough.